Caml-list On 10 December 2011 13:58, Gabriel Scherer <[email protected]>wrote:
> There already exist such a common denominator language. For > performance reasons, it is architecture-dependent [...] > There have been plans to move to a better common denominator, or at > least a better bridge language (C--, LLVM, ...) > Why should that be a low-level language ? Why not core-ML ? What I see as the very first issue is the spread of the efforts between similar yet incompatible ML dialects leading to 4 weak communities (SML, OCaml, F#, Haskell) instead of a really strong one and all the related problems that come with it (fewer books, risk for industrials, work duplication, inefficient funding, lack of visibility, etc). Example : there is an excellent whole source code optimiser ... for SML. And an award winning SMT solver ... in Caml developed in a company that invests heavily in information-centric web applications ... in F# ( http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/z3/ if you don't know Nikolaj Bjorner's Z3). Now say you want to do an application that delivers optimal electricity production plans. What language do you choose ? Just being able to reuse the source-code between string ML dialects even after recompilation (X -> CoreML -> specific platform) would be an improvement. Diego Olivier -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
